PDA

View Full Version : Attention all experienced REAL LIFE tailwheel dragger pilots!!



Bearcat99
06-27-2005, 04:57 PM
This thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=5751009233&r=8741010433#8741010433) got me to thinking.... my post towards the bottom of page 1 basically explains what I am asking you and why, but the gist of it is this......

Based on your real life experiences... can you experiment with your stick settings and see if you can come up with something that more acurately represents what your tailwheel dragger exeriences tell you about the sim? That goes for any pilots who have actually flown any of the aircraft in the sim. Using IL2 Manager 5.0 we can actually set up different profiles for different aircraft by going to the Joystick/Hotas/TIR button.. so if a Spit should be set one way then we can do that and name the setting Spitfire.. or Mustang or whatever... I think there are up to 5 different settings so .... 5 different profiles..... I seem to remember a while back someone posted about actually getting a former RAF flyer who used to fly Spitfires to fly in FB... and he said that it was pretty good except for something on the rudder I think it was, but the poster said that by adjusting his settings he was able to get it even closer to what that pilot remembered as the proper stick response. These are the kinds of things we need here.... instead of the multiple threads complaining about stalls and spins and how bad the 4.01 FM is... we need solutions... we need to put our heads together to make it work. 1C and the community have already supplied us with all we need to really stretch this thing even further with the exception of some planes that arent here yet and complaining wont get them here sooner.... if/or at all for that matter. We need to use what we have instead of griping about what isnt here. We need to not let the influx of gamers (No offense but gammers and simmers are two different types of people... even simmers who do games arent as demanding of thier games as they are of thier sims.. after all.. it's just a game) take us off track from the same passion that brought us GREAT user made stuff like IL2 STAB, IL2 Manager, The UQMG, VAC, the Skin Manager and so much other GREAT USER MADE STUFF INSPIRED BY THI SIM... So you real life pilots....share your expertise please.... take the time and do the research. Once it starts to pour in I will sticky the thread and we can all benifit from it and maybe we can come up with something that we can all use to enjoy this sim even more.....

I am enjoying this sim as it is but I know that some are not and AFAIC there is always room for improvement but as I said with what we currently have at our disposal we can do a lot to fine tune these great FMs..... my 2 cents.

Bearcat99
06-27-2005, 04:57 PM
This thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=5751009233&r=8741010433#8741010433) got me to thinking.... my post towards the bottom of page 1 basically explains what I am asking you and why, but the gist of it is this......

Based on your real life experiences... can you experiment with your stick settings and see if you can come up with something that more acurately represents what your tailwheel dragger exeriences tell you about the sim? That goes for any pilots who have actually flown any of the aircraft in the sim. Using IL2 Manager 5.0 we can actually set up different profiles for different aircraft by going to the Joystick/Hotas/TIR button.. so if a Spit should be set one way then we can do that and name the setting Spitfire.. or Mustang or whatever... I think there are up to 5 different settings so .... 5 different profiles..... I seem to remember a while back someone posted about actually getting a former RAF flyer who used to fly Spitfires to fly in FB... and he said that it was pretty good except for something on the rudder I think it was, but the poster said that by adjusting his settings he was able to get it even closer to what that pilot remembered as the proper stick response. These are the kinds of things we need here.... instead of the multiple threads complaining about stalls and spins and how bad the 4.01 FM is... we need solutions... we need to put our heads together to make it work. 1C and the community have already supplied us with all we need to really stretch this thing even further with the exception of some planes that arent here yet and complaining wont get them here sooner.... if/or at all for that matter. We need to use what we have instead of griping about what isnt here. We need to not let the influx of gamers (No offense but gammers and simmers are two different types of people... even simmers who do games arent as demanding of thier games as they are of thier sims.. after all.. it's just a game) take us off track from the same passion that brought us GREAT user made stuff like IL2 STAB, IL2 Manager, The UQMG, VAC, the Skin Manager and so much other GREAT USER MADE STUFF INSPIRED BY THI SIM... So you real life pilots....share your expertise please.... take the time and do the research. Once it starts to pour in I will sticky the thread and we can all benifit from it and maybe we can come up with something that we can all use to enjoy this sim even more.....

I am enjoying this sim as it is but I know that some are not and AFAIC there is always room for improvement but as I said with what we currently have at our disposal we can do a lot to fine tune these great FMs..... my 2 cents.

LStarosta
06-27-2005, 05:06 PM
Bearcat, I didn't know you were this naive. A Mustang is not a Mustang is not a Mustang is not a Mustang. A Spit is not a Spit is not a Spit etc etc.


I have flown perhaps 5 examples of the Cessna Caravan aircraft, for example, and each aircraft handles completely differently. In controls, in engine sensitivity, each aircraft is different. You are better off just setting the controls to whatever seems smoothest and easiest for you to fly.

The standard deviation for handling of an aircraft of the same type is quite large, and to think that all aircraft of the same type handle the same is absurd.

Furthermore, people's recollections of how aircraft handle are not accurate representations of reality, as most of us with over 500 posts should know by now.

JG7_Rall
06-27-2005, 05:07 PM
That would be great to have different stick profiles available for each plane, based on how pilots felt they flew in real life. That way, if you find yourself flying 1 plane in particular often, you could use those settings to get the most out of the game. IMMERSION BABY!

Bearcat99
06-27-2005, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Bearcat, I didn't know you were this naive. A Mustang is not a Mustang is not a Mustang is not a Mustang. A Spit is not a Spit is not a Spit etc etc.


I have flown perhaps 5 examples of the Cessna Caravan aircraft, for example, and each aircraft handles completely differently. In controls, in engine sensitivity, each aircraft is different. You are better off just setting the controls to whatever seems smoothest and easiest for you to fly.

The standard deviation for handling of an aircraft of the same type is quite large, and to think that all aircraft of the same type handle the same is absurd.

Furthermore, people's recollections of how aircraft handle are not accurate representations of reality, as most of us with over 500 posts should know by now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Granted... be that as it may be..... A Buick isnt a Buick isnt a Buick either.... So where does that leave us then? I am not stupid or naive.. I just would like to see something other than the whining crying BS that goes on adnauseum.... I dont think this suggestion is a bad one... after all this is a sim... it isnt real....... We all know that but at the same time if there were something we could do to make it more interesting then I say go for it. And calling me naive and commenting on what I should or shouldnt know is not productive at all so if you cant be productive then stay out of the thread please. If you have some experiences to share then please do so. It is an idea...... nothing more... If you cant build it up then please... dont tear it down.. we have enough tearing down around here and I am sick of it.

WarWolfe_1
06-27-2005, 05:57 PM
great idea! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG7_Rall
06-27-2005, 05:59 PM
WarWolfe--

excellent quote in your sig, but isn't it George Patton? Or did Georga Patton really say that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
06-27-2005, 06:07 PM
I think I understand what Bearcat is looking for. FOr example; Lets take the short 7 inch computer joystick vs an aircraft's 2 and sometimes 3 foot control stick. There is a huge difference in control input. Without thinking, from habit, I can overcontrol a flight sim with ease due to the short control input.

Same with rudder peds. I use CH peds and very seldom do I ever move them further than 1/4 to 1/2 for take-off......with "SMALL CORRECTIONS", KEY WORD HERE......SMALL

With this new FM, if you see osscillations when the nose comes uo on take-off, your over controlling, getting the nose up too quick and/or................

"Most pilot accendents are caused by pilots doing too little too early followed by too much too late"

Forget who quoted that.

Bearcat is right...some airplanes demand more control movement than others to achieve the same basic results.


However, while in a dogfight, I do somewhat disagree with the lack of "slipstream stability".

trumper
06-28-2005, 02:38 AM
It's a great idea but i wonder how many of us have flown a WW2 warbird ,not me unfortunately http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
Those on here that are real pilots can't possibly judge the performance of a cessna with a high performance fighter/bomber.
With that in mind will their findings turn a Spitfire into a Cessna.

Woof603
06-28-2005, 06:06 AM
A good idea, Bearcat99, but to some extent I have to agree with LStarosta (although not with the negativity) in that every airplane flies differently. Although most of my time is on jets, I went through basic, advanced, weapons and instrument school on T6 Texans/Harvards and have over 5000 hrs in C47s/DC3s and as I remember they all got bashed about in service and that reflected in their flying characteristics. I use a CH Combat stick with pedals, at default settings, and through all the patches the FMs have appeared as close to realistic as one could hope for, with the 4.01 the best so far. As another poster mentioned, smoothness is the key. Re the supposed squirrely take-offs, as in R/L I hold the stick full back until I can feel the tail wanting to rise, then bring it up gently. No porpoising. Gentle rudders and trim only when really necessary. Maybe I'm just lucky with the Ch Combat stick, but I believe the answer lies not in the settings but in the approach to the game.

dieg777
06-28-2005, 06:19 AM
captain Eric Browns settings

pitch 0,1,3,7,9,14,18,23,27,33
roll 0,0,1,2,3,4,6,10,12,17
yaw 0,0,1,2,5,6,8,11,14,16


this was in an old thread. never tried them as they looks way weird but might be worth testing in new fm

Eric Brown was a test pilot for RAF and tested several RAF and Luftwaffe planes- he wrote a book on the subject-

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=7243686&...=works*listing*title (http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=7243686&amp;wauth=Brown%2C%20Eric&amp;mat ches=10&amp;qsort=r&amp;cm_re=works*listing*title)

and

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=1833940&...=works*listing*title (http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=1833940&amp;wauth=Brown%2C%20Eric&amp;mat ches=20&amp;qsort=r&amp;cm_re=works*listing*title)

-HH-Quazi
06-28-2005, 07:02 AM
Man, what a great idea! And I also realize that each ac handles a bit differently. I mean set three Spits side by side. Take one up, then the next, and so on. I am sure there would be differences, but I believe they wouldn't be as different than if you set a Spit and a Mustang side by side and did the same test. So shoot yea, I hope so real life tail draggers can come up with some stick settings to more closely emmulate the stick responses. Maybe have each one submit their settings to one person, like BC maybe, and I believe they would be close enough to come up with a general setting that encompasses the lot of them. Super idea imho BC!

wagsleadtom
06-28-2005, 08:22 AM
Woof603 has hit it pretty close to home...most of my RL experience is also on fast jets (over 4500 hours on 46 different a/c types). I went through USN Test Pilot School in 1981 and had a chance to fly some neat old tail draggers (SNJ, DH Beaver). I have a fair amount of experience as a Naval aviator and test pilot (actually USMC) including testing the flying qualities and performance on the F/A-18A/B and sorting out their fidelity on the procedures, instrument, and dome (ACM) simulators for the Hornet.

Having said that, I guess as a way of qualification, there are many with much more experience (especially with WWII fighters), so what I offer below can be accepted or rejected as each of you see fit.

I use the CH Fighterstick, ProThrottle and ProPedals with default stick settings. My only complaint regarding the flying qualities during takeoff (and this applies to all the a/c modeled in FB-AEP-PF) is that there seems to be a tendency for a small but rapid Beta (yaw) oscillation right around the point where the tail starts to unstick (this is also about the time that full T/O power is reached). I have no idea what can (or if anything should) be done about this, but I've never experienced this in a RL tail dragger unless I overcontrolled rudder and started a PIO (pilot initiated oscillation) in the yaw axis. I've tried this with tailwheel locked and unlocked and the difference seems slight.

As Woof603 so accurately stated, small control inputs are the key. May I suggest the following T/O technique for those who wish to try it: Unless faced with a short runway or a carrier takeoff (when you need to be at full power before brake/chock release), gradually increase power to around 30in Hg, hold the stick slightly aft of neutral, ailerons neutral and put in a slight amount of right rudder (for clockwise rotating props). Release brakes, watch your yaw and use small rudder inputs to correct as you increase power to takoff manifold pressure (full T/O power). Keep the stick slightly aft until you feel the tail start to rise then relax the stick to its neutral position. The nose should come down so the a/c is in a relatively level attitude. Just prior to takeoff speed, gradually increase back pressure on the stick to achieve 5-10 deg nose up and liftoff. While on the runway, be very conscious of yaw (it will vary greatly with each a/c type and with the rate of power increase you apply) and use small rudder inputs to keep the a/c headed down the middle of the runway (or deck).

It's really that simple - except for that darn yaw oscillation at tail unstick speed. I just can't seem to get that right on every T/O.

Cheers to all and thanks to Bearcat99 for a good idea and the intestinal fortitude to bring it out for discussion.

S!

Wagsleadtom

MADP
06-28-2005, 10:17 AM
I don't know if it will be possible to simply change the stick settings to simulate a more realistic experience.

A real airplane "talks" to the pilot, a taildragger on the ground even more so! The plane will tell you: "OK, I'm ready for the tail to come up" on takeoff. Later, it will say "Don't push any harder or you're going to prang the prop". Finally, it'll say "It's time to fly". Land in a 20 kt crosswind and it will yell "What the f*** are you doing?!" It's impossibe to simulate the "feel" of a live airplane in your hands, feet, ears, and butt.

As much as some don't like to hear it, this is just a game.

KarayaEine
06-28-2005, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MADP:
I don't know if it will be possible to simply change the stick settings to simulate a more realistic experience.

A real airplane "talks" to the pilot, a taildragger on the ground even more so! The plane will tell you: "OK, I'm ready for the tail to come up" on takeoff. Later, it will say "Don't push any harder or you're going to prang the prop". Finally, it'll say "It's time to fly". Land in a 20 kt crosswind and it will yell "What the f*** are you doing?!" It's impossibe to simulate the "feel" of a live airplane in your hands, feet, ears, and butt.

As much as some don't like to hear it, this is just a game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said MADP. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Even with force feedback our controls in no way simulate what the real thing is like. When you're actually in the pilot's seat of a tail dragger only then will you know when she's ready. Hell, we can't even simulate real wind/weather conditions in this sim. I guarantee you the same tail dragger will perform differently in no wind, head wind and crosswind conditions.

About the only thing you can count on is the gear stance. I know that I have to be very light on the rudder of my 109 & Spitfire with the narrow gear while when flying the Mustang, 190 or P-47 I can be a little more forcefull with the rudder. That wide standing main gear really helps you out.

The best thing to do is fly the airplane. Give it what it needs. Don't try to compensate by programming your joystick. that is totally unrealistic. You can't do it in real life so why do it in the sim? I always tell my students to give the plane what it needs, you tell it where to go. A light touch is all that's needed. I see students tightly clutching the control yoke, white knuckled and weaving all over the place. Once they relax and use their fingertips things smooth out tremendously.

Just watch your plane. See what she does then correct for it, before it goets out of hand. If you get into PIO's you need to STOP moving the controls and let things settle down. I know it's hard to do but it works. Once you get into those PIO's all you'll do is make things worse.

Johann

TX-EcoDragon
06-28-2005, 06:51 PM
yes, each plane, even of the same type is different. . but by the same token, there are many similarities in different aircraft types too! There are certain behaviors that are within the realm of the expected, and then there are those that aren't. You may still be transitioning into some type, but chances are good that while you are focused on the differences, you are ignoring all the similarities that most conventionally designed aircraft have (and why not, you don't need to work to practice those habits and experiences you already have). That doesn't mean they don't exist. After a while of flying more and more types I think you start to see the similarities overshadow the differences. (Of course this can be a bit dangerous!)

In any case, my complaints with ground handling are that there is both a pitch and yaw oscillation that is too great, the pitch oscillation comes for me when any stick inputs are made other than the most slight ones (and when attempting to employ the usual real world tailwheel techniques), there is no ground loop tendency to worry about, and it seems that the CG and gear location being too close together could to a certain extent contribute to both the pitch oscillations as well as the nose over tendency/low pitch stability on the takeoff roll. I also feel that there is not quite enough weathervaning tendency and this exists in all aspects of the sims flight profile to some extent, and in the case of the takeoff and landing phase I once again feel that this contributes to the oscillations we see usually as a result of a PIO from rudder and elevator inputs. In the real world as the aircraft deviates from the level attitude (in either direction) there will be a tendency for the tail to return to the level position, so if the tail rises above the level attitude, it will tend to be pushed back down, if the tail is on the ground it will lift. . . this is a feel sort of thing, I can't quantitatively say how much or how many, I can only say that the sim seems to have inertia that wins over aerodynamics. Of course pilot inputs on the stick, power settings and brakes can of course overcome this natural stability, the aircraft do still have it to varying degrees, and the sim aircraft don't really(in 4.0x). The way I see it is that 4.0x increased inertia but if this is done there must also be an increase in the forces that oppose the inertia or the final product will feel a bit out of balance, and this seems to be the case.

Now, about the stick settings idea. The problems I have with that are these: The real world aircraft generally have pretty linear responses as the stick deflects. . . so setting up a concave curve that increases or decreases as you go along isn't going to give good feel for a pilot used to a more or less linear relationship between stick input and aircraft response. Additionally, tuning the response for ground handling will of course impact in flight handling adversely. The other issue with things like giving Eric Brown a test flight in the sim with an X-45 is that a real world pilot with no sim time is probably used to having a stick that has maybe two feet of travel on each axis. . . not 4 inches. . . and perhaps 80 lbs of stick force not a half pound. . .when he wants to roll into a bank and moves the stick according to his real world experience the difference in scaling between 24 inches and 4 inches are going to play a big role in the pilot's perspective of the feel. I suspect that's why Cpt. Brown suggests those very low curves. If he'd spent more time flying it he might have changed things a bit perhaps after he noticed that the Fw190 with his settings had a 50-60 degree per second maximal roll rate instead of something around 180 deg/sec (etc)!! He tuned it for feel based on motion from the center point at the expense of overall handling. Oleg/1C's roll rate numbers are pretty good in this aircraft and attaining these are predicated on being able to get full travel on the surface . . . it's clear that there is something amiss with this method of evaluation, and people need to realize this. This is the danger in giving a real world pilot a joystick and asking how the planes feel. The FM's could be perfect and this issue would still exist . . . and it complicates these sorts of appraisals of the sim aircraft behavior. We should take with a grain of salt the evaluations of people that are not used to the differences inherent with the computer/Joystick/Rudder pedal behaviors . . . even though it's great fun to read that article about Eric Brown, I don't think it's fair, or correct, to say that the default settings are fubar because he said that the settings should be such different values. A lot of our feedback and control in the sims comes from our joysticks. . just try combat one night with a new joystick. . . it's pretty tough even though the FMs are the same and your settings may be the same. . . this situation is of course much more of an issue when we are comparing an actual aircraft stick to a joystick. The hardware needs to be as minimal a variable as is possible for any real value to come from FM comparisons to the real world counterparts.